Opinion - Generals owe their loyalty to the rule of law, not to Trump
The firing of National Security Agency chief, Gen. Timothy Haugh and his deputy, Wendy Noble, has gone largely unnoticed amid the chaos over tariffs, even though it sets a dangerous precedent.
The dismissals occurred after a White House meeting between the president and his staunch supporter, Laura Loomer, and appear to have been done at her request.
'NSA Director Tim Haugh and his deputy Wendy Noble have been disloyal to President Trump,' Loomer posted on X. 'That is why they have been fired.'
The allegiance of military officers is to the country, not the president. As Trump has made abundantly clear, however, he values loyalty to him above all else.
'We're always going to let go of people — people we don't like. … or people that may have loyalties to someone else,' the president said in reference to the dismissals.
Haugh's firing follows the dismissal of Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman CQ Brown, Jr., allegedly for supporting DEI in the military. Trump also removed two female admirals, Chief of Naval Operations Lisa Franchetti and Coast Guard Commandant Linda Fagan. He also fired the top judge advocate generals of the Army, Navy and Air Force.
As commander-in-chief, the president does have the authority to replace generals and admirals, but this usually occurs during wartime as a result of command failures or disagreements over strategy.
Adm. Husband Kimmel and Gen. Walter Short were relieved of their commands and formally admonished following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
During the Korean Conflict, Harry Truman fired five-star general and WWII hero Douglas MacArthur, primarily because he ignored the president's direct orders and openly criticized his policies.
Truman faced a storm of criticism for his decision, but history has been kinder to him, recognizing MacArthur as an out-of-control general who might have gotten the United States into a conflict with China.
During the Vietnam War, the Johnson administration fired generals who criticized its strategy, and in 1971, Maj. Gen. James Baldwin was removed from his command and admonished for 'substandard performance of duty.'
President Obama replaced Gen. David McKiernan with Gen. Stanley McChrystal as the senior military officer in Afghanistan, but he based that decision on McChrystal's expertise in counterinsurgency, which was the new focus of the campaign.
In none of these cases did the president cite disloyalty as a reason for removing a senior officer.
The uniformed services occupy a unique position in the federal government. Officers and enlisted personnel must obey the lawful orders of the commander-in-chief.
However, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which regulates their professional conduct, explicitly requires members of the armed forces to disobey an order that is 'contrary to the constitution' or 'the laws of the United States' or that is 'patently illegal . . . such as one that directs the commission of a crime.'
This guidance puts the soldier in the unenviable position of having to determine, perhaps in the middle of a crisis, whether an order is legal or illegal.
That reality makes the selection of officers for their competence and integrity, not their personal loyalty to a particular president, all the more important. Trump has made no secret of his desire for an officer corps that will obey any order he gives them, just as he has demanded a compliant Department of Justice that will do his bidding.
Legal scholars fear that the president might use the 1807 Insurrection Act, which grants him broad latitude to deploy the military to 'enforce federal authority' against legitimate protestors or anyone else who opposes him.
In his executive order 'Declaring a National Emergency at the Southern Border of the United States,' Trump called on the secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security to make 'recommendations regarding additional actions that may be necessary to obtain complete operational control of the southern border, including whether to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807.'
If he gets away with using the act on the border, experts believe, he may employ it within the country.
During his first administration, the president wanted to use the military against Black Lives Matter protestors, only to be thwarted by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley. Would senior officers chosen for their loyalty show the same restraint?
The concern also exists in the arena of foreign policy.
Trump has vowed that the U.S. will 'go as far as we have to' to gain control of Greenland. Seizing the island by force would be tantamount to declaring war on our NATO ally, Denmark.
Would a Pentagon staffed with presidential loyalists obey an order to invade, or declare it illegal and refuse to comply?
The founders of the Republic rightly feared a standing army that could become an instrument of tyranny. As soon as they ratified the Constitution, they insisted that officers swear to uphold it.
In addition to their role in defending the country in a time of war or national emergency, senior military officers advise the president on national security. They must be apolitical and free to speak their mind, even when the commander-in-chief does not like what they have to say.
Yes-men chosen for their unwavering loyalty cannot do that. A politicized military committed to supporting the president, no matter what, poses an existential threat to democracy.
Once he consolidated power in Germany, Adolf Hitler changed the oath taken by members of the armed forces. They had previously sworn 'loyalty to the constitution' and vowed to 'protect the German nation,' but now had to 'render unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler.'
We do not live in Nazi Germany, and Trump is not Hitler. However, the lessons of history should not be ignored. A soldier's ultimate loyalty is, and must always be, to the Constitution, the country and the American people.
Tom Mockaitis is a professor of history at DePaul University and the author of 'Conventional and Unconventional War: A History of Modern Conflict.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Upturn
14 minutes ago
- Business Upturn
I regret some of my posts about President Trump: Elon Musk expresses regret
By Aditya Bhagchandani Published on June 11, 2025, 12:44 IST In what appears to be a shift in tone, Elon Musk on Tuesday posted that he regrets some of his recent remarks about President Donald Trump, saying, 'They went too far.' I regret some of my posts about President @realDonaldTrump last week. They went too far. — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 11, 2025 This comes just days after Trump addressed their ongoing feud, stating he wished Musk 'very well' and suggesting the tech mogul might be seeking a conversation. In a gesture that caught attention, Musk had responded with a heart emoji on X (formerly Twitter), sparking speculation about a possible reconciliation. Tensions between the two escalated last week after Musk called Trump's proposed 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' a 'pork-filled abomination' and accused the President of suppressing Jeffrey Epstein-related files. The latter post, which Musk later deleted, reportedly infuriated Trump, who retaliated with harsh criticism and even threatened to sever government contracts with Musk-led firms. The feud intensified when Musk countered by threatening to halt NASA-linked SpaceX missions and claimed Trump would have lost the 2024 election without his support. He also floated the possibility of impeachment. However, Musk's latest message—posted at 12:34 PM on June 11—marks a notable departure from his confrontational stance, possibly signaling the beginning of a de-escalation. While no official conversation has been confirmed, both camps appear to be softening their positions, leaving the door open for future dialogue. Aditya Bhagchandani serves as the Senior Editor and Writer at Business Upturn, where he leads coverage across the Business, Finance, Corporate, and Stock Market segments. With a keen eye for detail and a commitment to journalistic integrity, he not only contributes insightful articles but also oversees editorial direction for the reporting team.
18 minutes ago
Trump's actions in Los Angeles spur debate over deportation funds in his 'big, beautiful' bill
WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' in Congress includes more than tax breaks and spending cuts — it also seeks to pour billions of dollars into the administration's mass deportation agenda. Republican leaders capitalized Tuesday on the demonstrations in Los Angeles, where people are protesting Trump's immigration raids at Home Depot and other places, to make the case for swift passage of their sprawling 1,000-plus-page bill over staunch Democratic opposition. House Speaker Mike Johnson said the One Big Beautiful Bill Act delivers 'much-needed reinforcements,' including 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, $45 billion to expand migrant detention facilities and billions more to carry out at least 1 million deportations a year. 'All you have to do is look at what's happening in Los Angeles to realize that our law enforcement needs all the support that we can possibly give them,' said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D. The focus on some $350 billion in national security funding comes as action on the massive package is lumbering along in Congress at a critical moment. Trump wants the bill on his desk by the Fourth of July. But Senate Republicans trying to heave it to passage without Democrats are also running up against objections from within their GOP ranks over the details. At the same time, Democrats are warning that Trump's executive reach into California — sending in the National Guard over the governor's objections and calling up the Marines — is inflaming tensions in what had been isolated protests in pockets of LA. They warned the president's heavy-handed approach has the potential to spread, if unchecked, to other communities nationwide. 'We are at a dangerous inflection point in our country,' said Rep. Jimmy Gomez, who represents the Los Angeles area. 'Trump created this political distraction to divide us and keep our focus away from his policies that are wreaking havoc on our economy and hurting working families," he said. "It's a deliberate attempt by Trump to incite unrest, test the limits of executive power and distract from the lawlessness of his administration.' At its core, the bill extends some $4.5 trillion in existing tax breaks that would otherwise expire at the end of the year without action in Congress, cutting some $1.4 trillion in spending over the decade to help offset costs. The Congressional Budget Office found the bill's changes to Medicaid and other programs would leave an estimated 10.9 million more people without health insurance and at least 3 million each month without food stamps from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. At the same time, CBO said the package will add some $2.4 trillion to deficits over the decade. One emerging area of concern for Republican leaders has been the bill's status before the Senate parliamentarian's office, which assesses whether the package complies with the strict rules used for legislation under the so-called budget reconciliation process. Late Monday, Republicans acknowledged potential 'red flags' coming from the parliamentarian's office that will require changes in the House bill before it can be sent to the Senate. Leaders are using the reconciliation process because it allows for simple majority passage in both chambers, were GOP majorities are razor-thin. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said Republicans are preparing to address the concerns with a vote in the House, possibly as soon as this week, to change the package. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer seized on the House's upcoming do-over vote as a chance for Republicans who are dissatisfied with the package to reassert their leverage and 'force the bill back to the drawing board.' 'They say they don't like parts of the bill — now is their opportunity to change it,' Schumer said. On Tuesday, Vice President JD Vance was dispatched to speak with one GOP holdout, Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who has pushed for deeper spending reductions in the bill to prevent skyrocketing deficits from adding to the nation's $36 trillion debt load. Other Republican senators have raised concerns about the health care cuts. But Republicans are in agreement on border security, deportation and military funding, over the objections of Democrats who fought vigorously during the committee process to strip those provisions from the bill. The package includes about $150 billion for border security and deportation operations, including funding for hiring 10,000 new ICE officers — with what Johnson said are $10,000 hiring bonuses — as well as 3,000 new Border Patrol agents and other field operations and support staff. There's also funding for a daily detention capacity for 100,000 migrants and for flights for 1 million deportations annually. The package includes $46 billion for construction of Trump's long promised wall between the U.S.-Mexico border. Additionally, the bill includes $150 billion for the Pentagon, with $5 billion for the military deployment in support of border security, along with nearly $25 billion for Trump's 'Golden Dome' defense system over the U.S. Separately, the bill adds another $21 billion for the Coast Guard. Democrats have argued against the deportations, and warned that Trump appears to be stirring up protests so he can clamp down on migrant communities. Rep. Nanette Barragan — whose district represents the suburban city of Paramount, where the weekend Home Depot raid touched off protests — implored Americans: 'Listen to the words of this administration: They're using words like insurrection. They're using words like invasion.' She warned the administration is laying the groundwork for even steeper actions. 'That's a concern,' she said. 'That is dangerous. It's wrong.'
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk says he regrets some posts he made about Trump
(Reuters) -Billionaire Elon Musk said on Wednesday that he regrets some of the posts he made last week about U.S President Donald Trump, in a message on his social media platform X. "I regret some of my posts about President Donald Trump last week. They went too far," Musk wrote. Trump and Musk began exchanging insults last week on social media, with the Tesla and SpaceX CEO describing the president's sweeping tax and spending bill as a "disgusting abomination." Musk's post comes days after Trump said his relationship with Musk was over.
